M/S MODFURN SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., AND ANOTHER M/S.P. Jesus Moris Ravi, J.PRAVIN vs THE INDIAN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, — A/6170/2025
Case under Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 Section 1. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 08th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA012947282025
Filing Number
A/197299/2025
Filing Date
27-11-2025
Registration No
A/6170/2025
Registration Date
09-12-2025
Judge
Honourable Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE
Coram
Honourable Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE
Bench Type
Single Bench
Judicial Branch
ORIGINALSECTION
Decision Date
08th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/S MODFURN SYSTEMS (INDIA) PVT.LTD., AND ANOTHER M/S.P. Jesus Moris Ravi, J.PRAVIN
M/S JAYABHARATHAM FURNITURE AND APPLIANCES PVT LTD.
Respondent(s)
THE INDIAN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Hearing History
Judge: Honourable Dr.Justice A.D.MARIA CLETE
APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS
MENTIONED CASES
APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-12-2025 | APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS |
| 04-06-2026 | MENTIONED CASES |
| 16-12-2025 | APPLICATION IN CIVIL SUITS |
Orders
Summary of Case A/6170/2025 The Madras High Court allowed four applications filed by defendants Modfurn Systems and Jayabharatham Furniture seeking to reopen evidence, recall a witness, and admit additional documents in a rent recovery suit. The court found the documents—relating to shop allotments, security deposits, area surrenders, and TDS certificates—were prima facie relevant to disputed issues including extent of occupation, payments, and account adjustments. The court permitted the additional evidence despite its belated filing (after evidence closure), but imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the applicants to compensate the plaintiff for delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case A/6170/2025 The Madras High Court allowed four applications filed by defendants Modfurn Systems and Jayabharatham Furniture seeking to reopen evidence, recall a witness, and admit additional documents in a rent recovery suit. The court found the documents—relating to shop allotments, security deposits, area surrenders, and TDS certificates—were prima facie relevant to disputed issues including extent of occupation, payments, and account adjustments. The court permitted the additional evidence despite its belated filing (after evidence closure), but imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on the applicants to compensate the plaintiff for delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts